Jesus is the King of kings. He is the radiance of God's glory and the exact imprint of his nature (Heb 1:3). We are his unworthy servants and he grants us the privilege of serving in his kingdom.
The Bible tells about Jesus Christ as the best news for mankind and the central figure of all time. It tells the story of the early Christian community that came from this encounter with Jesus. They gathered together regularly and deeply cared for each other.
I discovered the deep riches of God's grace when I was around 9, in Africa, at a boarding school. I experienced a special Christian community both at home and at school. Since then I have been observing the church in America. I continue to attend traditional churches, but I am always on the lookout for any church willing to follow the traditions of the Apostles2 Thess 2:15, 1 Corinthians 11, 14, Colossians 3, Ephesians 4, Galatians 5, etc.
When we look at the New Testament and try to understand the first century, we find a setting that is foreign to the modern religious context. We read of an ekklesia-church, but it is not a building or an institution. We see a group of ordinary, untrained men who changed the world after being with Jesus. We read of a community where every qualified member had the freedom and responsibility to speak, build up, encourage, and participate in this ekklesia-church.
As we think about the modern church, we hit a wall of confusion and misunderstanding. Tradition, liturgy, and performance define our sit-in-the-pew-time each week. There are all kinds of churches, but the common theme is not actually following the traditions of the Apostles. Sometimes it is Old Covenant ideas leaking into the New Covenant. Other times it is going beyond scripture to human logic, philosophy and cultural expectations. The traditions of man are powerful and pull us from scripture.
Church today is a far cry from the original ekklesia. Think of the 1st century church in Jerusalem, one city-wide church of passionate Christians who loved each other, met in each others homes, and were respected by the people. While the early church relied on the Holy Spirit working through common men, the modern church relies on professional clergy, seminary training, and 501(c)(3) institutional structures.
We need God's Spirit and Life from above. Jesus says, I came that they may have life and have it abundantly (John 10:10). Later, Paul says, "Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Corinthians 3:5-6).
We all have presuppositions. Here are some of mine. I am encouraged to be honest with your time, by letting you know how I read the Bible.The only way I can be honest with your money, is to make this available online so you don't have to buy the book. If you bought the book and can't return it, I am sorry. Leviticus says, "You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him" (Lev 19:17). So this is the "frankly" part. My assumptions include the priority of the Apostle's traditions over modern church traditions. I hold to the priority of the 1 Corinthians 14 meeting over the modern church service. I assume the 1st century churches create a pattern for today. My assumptions about the role of elder, pastor, and teacher must fit with 1 Corinthians 14 and other scripture. I consider ordination a continuation of the institutional clergy system. The Bible seems clear, that elders should be responsible at the city/town level (Titus 1:5, etc). I look to the Bible for truth and not to the creeds. I hold to New Covenant Theology.We recommend New Covenant Theology and it's close relative, Progressive Covenantalism over Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology. Modern church is way too formal, professional, and performance-driven. Complementarianism has compromised in the direction of egalitarianism. Complementarianism has compromised 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. See Zachary Garris, Honor Thy Fathers: Recovering the Anti-Feminist Theology of the Reformers (Dallas: New Christendom Press, 2024). Garris shows how 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 stands on its own as a binding command. See, John MacArthur, ed., The MacArthur Study Bible, English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, n. I am traditional, patriarchal, and follow the plain biblical text on men's and women's roles. For some of you, that is enough to end the conversation. But I hope you will read on.
Another important thing to understand up front is what we mean when we say "we" or "our" in these pages. I am writing this way on purpose. A small part of this book will tell my story and will use "I" or "my", but for most of it, I am speaking for a large body of believers who read the Bible in simplicity and want to avoid institutionalism. So when you read "we see," think of it as either an invitation for you to look at the raw Bible text right alongside me, or think of it as a statement of what our shared community holds to be true.
Many of us who look at scripture have come to appreciate a new clarifying overview of the Bible known as New Covenant Theology.New Covenant Theology and Progressive Covenantalism, are like brothers. NCT is a bit older and is the original battleground for an improved theological system. PC is more recent in academia, and tries to avoid some of the false accusations. There are also those who see the same biblical ideas but avoid the labels. This will be an underlying idea and assumption in our book. If you are not familiar with NCT, just know that it tries to focus on the Bible (sola scriptura) and Jesus (as central). But the label is not important. Many Christians have read the Bible and come to the same basic conclusions without any theological system to guide them. Scholars have invested their time in understanding the scriptures without using this label. I know, because I learned from one of them. The important thing is relying on God's Word and His Spirit.
I first learned the Bible without the institutional church. I had a wonderful Christian community, but no church. There was authority but no pastor. Sometimes your church traditions can blind you to what the Bible is saying. For most of my adult life, I have lived in the traditional church system, and I can understand the comfort of it. I can see why no one wants to look too seriously at the early church. But over the years, my convictions have grown. I have to publish my thoughts. I am looking for what is most honoring to Jesus and the Apostles. I am always wondering about early church patterns for today's church.
Jesus said he would build his ekklesia, "And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt 16:18). The standard translation of ekklesia is 'church', but we want to know why some people prefer to translate it as 'assembly', 'community', 'gathering' or 'called out ones.' Martin Luther translated 'ekklesia' as 'Gemeinde' (community), never 'kirke.' Tyndale translated it as 'congregation' which influenced his being burnt at the stake.See Tyndale's defense, "An Answer unto Sir Thomas More's Dialogue" The KJV translated ekklesia as 'church' with the purpose of strengthening the institution."Tyndale's preferment of words like 'congregation' for ekklesia and 'elder' for priest was radical and provocative... By avoiding 'church,' the reformers sought to break the monopoly of the institutional hierarchy." - Daniell, David. The Bible in English: Its History and Influence. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. The best simple translation is probably 'assembly', 'community' or 'gathering.'https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/54140/in-matthew-1618-how-should-ekklesia-be-translated-and-understood But since we are so familiar with translating ekklesia as 'church', please forgive us for frequently doing the same.
Jesus shows his active role in the churches in Revelation 1-3. We could have said the ekklesias of Revelation, or the communities of Revelation, but words get stuck in our mind. The word church is powerfully planted in our mind, even if not the best translation. In these churches, some are spoken of as conquering and others are failing. Some are more noble than others. What matters to Jesus is behavior and character in each church and each church member. Later, we will discuss how the simple idea of church member has lead to a great misunderstanding. Thankfully, Jesus is in complete control and he is watching us.
What does Jesus mean when he says, "the kingdom of God is in the midst of you," or "within you?" (Luke 17:21) Paul makes it very clear when he says, "Do you not know that you (plural) are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? (plural) (1 Cor 3:16)(But there are other ideas. Behold, He Comes with the Clouds (Rev. 1:7)) God who is all powerful, actually lives in us! As we go about life, Jesus says, "I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20). Jesus gave us these parting instructions, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20). The task we are given is great. Very few of us are focused on it. Sometimes we claim success and build up our denominational or theological system, but any real success is by the Spirit. The real ekklesia-church is not organizational, but is like mindedness (Phil 2:2).
Obeying Jesus and his commands is important, but the New Covenant includes doing everything in love. We are called to more than good behavior. And we are called to more than our neighborhood. Jesus calls us to make disciples of all nations. Influencing America is not enough. Jesus has dramatic world changing plans. Amazingly, he chooses to work through us instead of doing everything directly himself. It is like a parent wanting to teach a child to do a task that could be done so much easier, but the training has a purpose. In the process of the Christians life, we can be found worthy or unworthy, faithful or unfaithful.Faithful: 1 Cor 4:17, Eph 6:21, Col 1:7, 4:7, 4:9, Peter 5:12, 3 John 1:5, Rev 2:13 It depends on if we are living like Timothy or living like Demas. The Kingdom advances as the true ekklesia-church advances. Our churches do well if we have courage like the faithful in the Revelation churches. But if we entertain our life away, we are weakening ourself. If we push our church and denomination the point of ignoring the division, we are not building. Jesus is watching everything, and controlling, but we are responsible. Jesus choses when to prune the vines. He wants growth. I have seen this in my backyard. All my unpruned trees are completely useless. They are ready to be cut down. My fruit trees are doing nothing. Likewise, some churches may be growing while Jesus is thinking of pruning. He knows the heart. There is no value in trying to look good.
The main idea in this book is to show the attractivness of the original 1st century church and the dream of living it today. We want to encourage building on the foundation of the Apostles who set up the original ekklesia communities and have recorded how we should continue building. We may point out some failures but you can also figure that out on your own. We want to follow the foundation builders who have the genuine authority to say how things should be done in all the churches.
My Story With The Church
I grew up in Africa on a mission station. I also attended a boarding school for missionary kids. I stayed at the boarding school for 3-4 months at a time. At school, I never went to a church service and I never heard a sermon. This was probably the most spiritually meaningful time in my life, because I met God. I enjoyed being part of the Christian community aspect of my school. This is where I read the Bible, learned to love God, and participated in the community. Two other kids ran away from school. They could not handle the rules. Spankings were given for talking during mid-day quiet time. God used this for good in my life. I have all good memories of this time in my life.
When I was home at the mission station, I often attended the missionary led prayer meetings and church services. This was a proper church service, but I did not understand the preacher. He spoke in a language called Kikaonde. I would attend Sunday School with other Zambian children who barely spoke English. So, my most foundational thoughts about God and His church happened at boarding school. At boarding school we never attended church, but it often felt like we lived church. Each day was school, play and this kind of church. On many days we had a small group singing time with a British-lady teacher. At the end of the day, a man would lead a Bible reading time in the boys dorm. We regularly ate together in a hall.
Part of the boarding school routine was a mandatory quiet time around noon each day. This was a strictly enforced quiet time, with serious consequences if you did not comply. In the morning, we had required devotional readings using a "Scripture Union" devotional. But during the mid-day quiet time, I found myself with nothing else to do, and became interested in reading my KJV Bible. Reading the Bible during quiet time was not required, but the quiet time was a no-distraction time. There was nothing to do, so the Bible reading became a serious interest for me. By the time I was 10, I had covered most of the Bible with a strong emphasis on the New Testament.
This boarding school experience was a very special Christian community, yet we never 'met in homes' or attended a church 'service.' Of course, there is nothing wrong with meeting in homes. And it probably makes the most sense if you want to obey the Apostles in the most obvious way. There is wisdom in following the 1 Corinthians 14 style meeting and the 1 Corinthians 11 full-meal Lord's Supper. But this boarding school experience showed that an institution can create an environment that is an early church like community.
The Zambian church where I lived was started by missionaries in the 1930s. I recall the full Bible being translated into Kikaonde around 1975. The church was unified in the early days. The church was growing. It wasn't until much later that I noticed the denominations creeping into the area. I think of the early days of the evangelical church in Zambia as special times, where the church trusted the missionaries in how to setup churches. Many good things were learned. But the Zambian church had to do it on its own, and today, it is good to see the church being a witness and a light to the world.
The early church in Jerusalem was very relational, a strong witness for God, home-based, city-based, and a whole lot more. My African church experience showed me church did not need formality. If the African church became a bit formal, it was because they were taught to be that way by the missionaries. The natural Zambian way of spending time together is in a circular gathering. The missionaries, however, showed the African's how to sit in pews and listen to the preacher.
In America, when I did go to church, I started to develop concerns while comparing church with scripture. During most of my teenage years, our family attended a small "Bible church" in Pennsylvania. We also visited a larger "Baptist" and an Evangelical Free church in New Jersey where my parents had deep connections. Attending these American churches helped me evaluate the simple African church with the more complex American church.
As a teenager, the most important time for me was reading God's Word on my own. This was my foundation for living and thinking about life. I had very few Christian friends at church because our church was small and at school I could not find any Christians. My two brothers and I were the main part of our "youth group." Our little church tried, but it was hard being so small. There were very few young people at the Wednesday prayer meeting. These times taught patience, trust, and faithfulness. There is much good when things are hard and you struggle through it. My difficult days in my public school experience drew me more to the Psalms and more to the Bible in general. I often read my Bible on my own in the evenings. In teenage years, the questions about how the ekklesia in the Bible related to the modern church began to grow. I pondered these things, but no one else seemed interested. In those days there was no internet and information was difficult. So, I kept the thoughts to myself.
Years, later, on my second professional job, I met a co-worker who was notably different. His name was Dan Holsopple. He was interested in talking about Christian things even at the professional job (at appropriate times). At one point he mentioned a ministry called NTRF, and I got hooked. Dan was very different from most Christians in a good way. His ideas about the church were different. He was more into discussion and home based meeting and more relational interests than the usual guy. He loved people and was more into the home oriented church relationships than most Chrisitans. He was not perfect, and he recently died, but I have good memories of Dan.
As I read NTRF's book by Steve Atkerson, I started to see an author who had seen the observations I was seeing, and had deeper solutions to many of my questions. His book was called "Toward a House Church Theology", and it was brilliant, bold, and biblical. This book was looking to the Bible and the Apostles traditions for how to do church in a practical way. In his first book, Steve was a passionate man on a mission to restore the New Testament church to the original ways of the Apostles. He was a pastor, who had gotten into house churches, and he had many biblical insights and practical experiences. This drew me in to read other "forbidden books." on the topic.Forbidden books, meaning books that are generally avoided by most Christians and books that are generally not appreciated by modern church leaders.
Many years later, I have observed a "house church movement", that is so egalitarian that I cannot support it. Another danger with this movement is isolation. Unless a higher percent of a city is supportive, we recommend staying more connected with the traditional church. The modern house churches tend to be either Charismatic or egalitarian. Very few of these house churches were conservative like NTRF described. I had to reject the popular house church movement.
Over time, my friend Steve Atkerson softened his approach, lost some of his cutting edge biblical-house-church passion, and started to promote "small churches" and assisting small traditional churches. He apparently wanted to mend relationships with many of his Southern Baptist small church friends that he had grown up with. But he still kept writing, carefully and thoughtfully. And perhaps for him, this was wisdom, to make friends, as Jesus would say. To keep a positive encouraging path forward for the many small churches he knew.
Among the "forbidden books" there were writers like Jon Zens and Robert Banks. D.A. Carson mentions these writers in the footnotes of his "Showing the Spirit." As a scholar, D.A. Carson reads, but among Christian friends, these are "unwanted/forbidden." They challenge the status quo. They ask hard questions about how the church follows the Bible. In church sermons, I have heard warnings about "bloggers." But you can find these "forbidden books" and blogs on YouTube. Christians will get interested in many dumb social media obsessions but when it comes to serious questions about the church, they generally have no interest. To me, these authors are a continual source of both encouragement and frustration depending on their approach. It often comes down to what they are saying and do they honor scripture. At times, some of these authors are brilliant. At other times they are lacking.Some YouTube authors are dangerous of course. This is where dialog should happen. But instead, with a blanket warning on "bloggers" we have no dialog based analysis or consensus.
As I mention some things in my story, I am sure some readers will see things differently. My closest friends see things differently. But the differences should be discovered. Good conversation can happen if we know and experience and share in spite of our differences. Love is seen when we interact in spite of strong convictions. If you see something that bothers you, perhaps consider it, but you may need to just continue on the path that God has for you. Each of us will stand before God someday, and it is good to listen to each other. Think of it like this. I have spent 50 years listening to the preachers and teachers in the church. Now, before I die, feel the need to share a few thoughts. When you get old, you may also want to share some thoughts. You may discover something important and say, "Hey. Listen. There is something in the Bible that I found interesting."
There is one more thing about the "house church movement" that I must say. I would rather continue attending a traditional church with a senior paster preaching sermons, a male eldership and a silent laity than to attend an egalitarian house church (and most of the are of this type). I don't see any good in the modern house church movement that encourages all to speak equally, men and women. I would rather that we all sit quietly listening to the one man show. I hold to the traditional interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. If there is no choice, I am on the side of the traditional church that silences everyone. This is how I understood the scriptures on this topic since my first reading in the mid 1970s. I follow the plain reading of God's Word and I am not be swayed by the modern scholars. Zachary Garris does a service on this topic with his book on honoring the Reformed church 'Fathers.'
So, in summary, I continue to attend the traditional church. I like to see the Christian community in action, and join in the singing, listen to the sermon, hear the prayers, and look for good conversation. Many times I can think of the day as a perfect Sunday at church. Our family likes church. But, at the same time, I have concerns about the modern church. I am perplexed when as I compare the modern church to what the Bible says. I am forced to question it. I wonder about the building-temple concept, the role of the pastor, the singing, the conversations. I can't talk about it with anyone, but I question almost everything.
The Priesthood Of Believers
The New Testament reveals that believers are 'preists' to God. This is a radical idea that everone knows, but no one knows (experiences). We may be priests, but we don't treat each other as priests. We don't experience being a priest as we go to church, because we may not really believe it for real life. We know about it theoretically, but we don't understand it to be something actual. But God says, believers are made a kingdom and priests (Rev 1:6, 5:10). There is an Old Testament connection because Israel was called a kingdom of priests (Ex 19:6). But yet we know the Old Testament had a separate priesthood. Perhaps that is why we don't apply it to ourself very deeply. Peter says, "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy (1 Peter 2:9-10). We are wrong to let this idea linger in the theoretical.
The ordinary believers are being built up as a "holy priesthood" to offer spiritual sacrifices to God. Peter says that we are a "royal priesthood, a holy nation", so what does that mean? If it is true that we are priests in some sense, the Old Testament is surely a guide for us into some of what this may mean. We know that the duty of priestly service of ceremonial ritual has been fulfilled in Christ, so that is not part of it, other than serving Christ. Jesus says, "If you love me you will obey my commandments", which is part of it. There are many things that can be gleaned from the Old Testament that might inform our concept of being priests. But one thing you can be sure of, if the clergy class of people are acting like priests and you are treated like the laity, then that is a completely wrong idea, if you are a priest. Priests can't be laity. Priests are ordained in the Old Testament, which means all Christians are ordained for service and ministry. If only some are ordained to ministry, then you are no longer being treated like a priest.
Let us test this idea of priest to show what we mean in more detail. If you recall 1 Cor 6 that speaks of judging in the Christian community, there is a somewhat surprising authority granted to ordinary believers. Paul says, "Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!" (1 Cor 6:2-3). This shows Paul has higher than expected assumptions of Christians acting like judges within the Christian community. Now compare that with Deuteronomy and the Old Testament priests.
Deuteronomy says, "And you shall come to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision. Then you shall do according to what they declare to you from that place that the Lord will choose. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they direct you. According to the instructions that they give you, and according to the decision which they pronounce to you, you shall do. You shall not turn aside from the verdict that they declare to you, either to the right hand or to the left. The man who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall purge the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear and fear and not act presumptuously again (Deut 17:9-13). Ezekiel says, "In a dispute, they shall act as judges, and they shall judge it according to my judgments (Ezek 44:24). So these ideas are not always considered of the New Testament Christian, but Romans says, "For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction" (Rom 15:4).
If you understand the Old Testament priesthood as Peter is describing, you are not trying to go back in time, but instead you are living under the New Covenant, under the "Law of Christ", and you are looking for wisdom.(See Brian Rosner, D.A. Carson and Doug Moo on this topic) You see the authority that God has given the priesthood in the Old Testament, but now Paul says all of you in the New Covenant have that same kind of authority. Priestly authority is given to all Christians similar to the priestly authority in the Old Testament. A young child of a priest, was not a judge, he had to mature. But he was of the class, heading toward more authority and respect as he matured. The same is true of New Covenant Christians. All New Covenant believers are priests, but there are other factors. Within the New Covenant priesthood, there are different roles just like there were different roles with the Old Testament priests. In the Christian assembly, for example, godly older men are selected to maintain order (1 Cor 14). Men who are humble and godly have authority accordingly. Men are not more authoritative based on seminary education or knowledge of systematic theology. Church organization based ordination is not ekklesia authority. Men who cause divisions do not have much authority. Men who know scripture but do not follow scripture do not have much authority. Gifted preachers do not have more authority. They may have less authority in God's eyes. It depends on how the person behaves according to God's Word and ultimately, sometimes, only God knows. We should always remember that Jesus was hard on the religious elite. Visible authority is not true authority. Popularity is not assurance of authority. D.A. Carson explains it well in his essay, "Defining Elders." He says, "Thus, the administration of authority in the church is not so much bound up with office, or merely manipulation of administrative leaders, although in any large organization there are various needs for and kinds of administration. Rather, the fount of authority is the Word. And out of this framework come teachers who explain that Word well and apply it well, so that believers say, 'Yes, this is the mind of God.'" Paul basically is saying, why would you ever think of going before unbelievers to settle your disputes? What a shameful thing to do! But this is just one idea of priesthood. Christians are given a high spiritual position and all of the Old Testament is pointing to the New Covenant meaning.
There should be no clergy-laity distinction in the priesthood. Christians should be serving each other, but there is a kind of serving that perpetuates the separation of an authority and professional gild within the church system. I recall one pastor clearly stated that he was a priest by his pastoring role. This is Old Covenant thinking. In the Old Testament, there was the common man and the priest. The priest would serve and be respected with authority. Today, we sometimes fall into that trap and allow men to stand up in front and act like a priest. All the ordinary people sit in pews and act like the laity. When we do that regularly, we are saying to Peter, no, I am happy to accept "The old has passed away" mindset (2 Cor 5:17). I am ok with the "letter kills" covenant (2 Cor 3:6). I am happy to accept the "captive under the law" era (Gal 3:23). You are saying, I want the "obsolete" (Heb 8:13). Don't call me to teach even though Hebrews says, "by this time you ought to be teachers" (Heb 5:12). I still need someone to teach me even though I have been a Christian for years.
For the most part, the clergy-laity problem is still part of our institutional church system and very much alive. There is blame with the laity, because they like the comfortable. It is sometimes called the consumer mindset. The Bible encourages interaction, dialog and heading toward teaching, but the consumer likes the easy way. It is very easy to do almost nothing like the servant Jesus said did not invest (Luke 19:11-27). Colossians pictures an important one-anothering activity of, "teaching and admonishing one another" (Col 3:16), but instead the consumer remains in a pew without raising questions found in scripture. But it is more the clergy that perpetuate the system. The institutional system is guarded by the formal membership rules and secondarily by the eldership requirements. The institution continues with human bylaws and church traditions. The respect for the new creation 2 Cor 5:17 is minimized and the respect for the speaker in 1 Cor 14:31 is missing.
For the most part, the priesthood is just a theoretical idea. Everyone is a priest, but now sit down and listen. Sure you might like to speak five words with your mind (1 Cor 14:19), according to New Testament assembly rules. Or you might have something to say like Jahaziel "in the midst of the assembly" (2 Chron 20:14-17), but we don't give you the freedom like the Jewish synagoges. The rulers of the synagoge did not control the speach, the just maintained order. They said, "Brothers, if you have any word of encouragement for the people, say it" (Acts 13:15). After Paul spoke, then they tested what was said like in the ekklesia (1 Cor 14:29).
Thankfully the priesthood is real to God, even if the visible church system does not honor priests as priests. We might not have the visible priesthood, but there is a real priesthood. Always look for the genuine priesthood and remember that Jesus says, "For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them" (Matt 18:20). Under the New Covenant, Jesus is the High Priest, and every believer is an ordained priest.
The Modern System
The modern church system is very different from the 1st century ekklesia. It is hard to compare a church that emphasizes the "worship service" compared to the participatory 1 Corinthians 14 style meeting. Or the tiny thimbal of juice and a cracker compared to a Passover inspired full meal like in 1 Corinthians 11. The modern preacher and the sermon is very different from the taking turns to speak and the dialog-style "preaching" that Paul did until Eutychcus fell out of the window (Acts 20:9). The early church met in homes and were able to add 3000 in one day, without a new building. Today's modern church would spend millions of dollars to manage that many new members. Come to think of it, even that word "member" is a difference. In the 1st century church you were added in one day, but our modern way is to do a long process to bring you in as a "member." This is just the very basics of differences. The big question, however, is does it matter.
The modern church only tends to hire a professional pastor with a good seminary training and some experience. This is completely different from the 1st century ekklesia that accepted fishermen. There was no seminary training in those days, only the man-to-man teaching as described in Timothy, in some cases. More often, the 1st century way was the Holy Spirit leading. A good example is, "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, 'Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them'" (Acts 13:2). Or the appointing of one of Paul's helpers. "This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you-" (Titus 1:5).
The modern church is often called the institutional church because of the organizational system that seems to be required. In order to save a lot of taxes, churches become 501(c)(3) based, and follow the 14 Part Guidelines. A top person is expected, called a senior pastor, and staff are usually required, even for a small church. Everything is professional, complicated, and planned. There is a Sunday expectation of a quality event so the attenders and members have a good experience. The people sitting in the pews are called the "consumers" by some books, and are often called the laity. The "pastor" and sometimes the "senior pastor", is focused on delivering a sermon with crafted oratory skill.
The typical modern church will have a board of elders and deacons, besides the senior pastor. Some of the elders may be pastors. There may be a director, an administrative assitant, assistant pastor(s), young adult leader(s), administrative roles for children, facilities, calendar, website, etc. There may be a trustee board with a chair person. Often, there will be effort put into maintaining the sermons being filmed and uploaded. There are many other roles and tasks, but in summary the modern church system is complex. The 1st century ekklesia was city based, met in homes, and the elders are hardly mentioned. The leaders did not dominate the speaking time, but they were expected to maintain order in the speaking time (1 Cor 14). Because the 1st century church met at the city level, adding 3000 new members in one day meant the church could be huge, even while all the members met in homes and knew each other. The differences are many.
The modern church tends to spend most of its money on buildings and staff. According to a quick AI search, about 50% goes for staff salaries and about 25% on buildings. There is another 25% for everything else, with about 11% for missions and evangelistic efforts, and 10% for programs and local ministry. Networks and denominational commitments take another 6%. This is a big contrast with the 1st century ekklesia that prioritized helping the poor and assisting traveling missionaries. In the early church, you were more likely to be put up in a home if you were a traveling minister, but today, you would be more likely to be provided a hotel. In the modern church, you sit and hear the sermon and don't interact with the preacher. But, like Paul, in the 1st century ekklesia, you might talk interactively, even all night on some occasions. There was no bulletin, so the meetings were not program and schedule driven. No planning was needed in the 1st century speaking, but today, much planning goes into the weekly meeting. One very fundamental and important concept in 1 Corinthians 1-3 is that Paul says we should not be too enamored with particular leaders. Some of the Corinthians were willing to follow "Paul" or "Apollos" or "Cephas" to the point of division. Paul explains this in chapter 3 with this, "So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future - all are yours, and you are Christ's and Chris is God's." This is a powerful explanation that says that we can appreciate many different men who might seem to be influenential, but we don't need to glorify any of them too much. We can appreciate something about a man of God, but we also should "test the spirits" (1 John 4:1).
I spent significant time in God's Word as a teenager, largely due to some difficulties at school. Besides the text at hand, I sometimes observed modern church compared to the Bible ekklesia. As I read my NASB and NIV Bibles, and investigated the study bible notes, I started to observe that the church today does not follow biblical tradition. For example, I observed how the Lord's Supper was treated so differently in Corinth compared to our modern day. I observed the collecting plate being an important modern tradition (this practice is fading). I noticed the modern church preacher and the idea of sermons, having very little to do with the New Testament. I observed churches calling their place a "temple" (building), even though the ekklesia is a word for the called-out-people of God. I noticed the participatory meetings in the early church and the lack of participation in our modern church.
I observed various books of the Bible showing the assembly meeting, like, 1 Corinthians 14, Colossians, Timothy, Titus and more. I noticed the early church normally met in homes and operated at the city/town level. I noticed the Jerusalem church worked smoothly, even with 1000s of members. There may have been 50 to 500 little meetings on Sunday, but the ekklesia was always considered at the city level. If there were issues, Acts records the Apostles and elders gathering at the town level to discuss the issue. 1 Corinthians 1, made it clear that sub-groups and personalities within the city-based church, were not God's way.
So this book is the result of 50 years of thoughts about God and the church He has designed. My desire is for Christians to obey Christ a little more carefully. My hope is for Christians to follow the traditions of the Apostles. Paul says, that "you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15).
The Meaning Of Ekklesia
The word 'church' is rooted in Kyriakon (The Lord's House, The Building), but actual Greek word used is ekklesia (The called-out ones, The people). "In ancient secular Greek culture, an ekklesia was not a religious building or institution. It referred to a political or civic assembly of citizens called out to deliberate, govern, or handle community affairs."See BDAG, 3rd ed., s.v. "ἐκκλησία"; and Karl Ludwig Schmidt, "ἐκκλησία," in TDNT, 3:513. It is shocking to think that this mistranslation has persisted in most English translations for so many years.
Jesus chose this word for called-out ones to describe the foundational gathering and assembly meeting of His Kingdom. The concept of the ekklesia (town council) is similar and yet different from the religious word synagogue (church assembly). The early church knew the word ekklesia well, because there were ekklesias all around. Most towns were governed this way, with Roman rule over the city-based ekklesia authority. Amazingly, the secular word ekklesia perfectly fits the ideas in a very important chapter of the Bible (1 Corinthians 14). The Greek meaning for the word ekklesia does not fit modern church because it strongly avoids anything spontaneous and any kind of open deliberation.
A significant aspect of the ekklesia is its city-state domain. In ancient Greece, the cities were also states. So the ekklesias were city based. The domain of an ekklesia (both in the Bible and in the origins of the word) was the city ('polis'). "In ancient Greece-most notably in classical Athens-the ekklesia was explicitly rooted in the polis (the city-state). You did not join this civic assembly through a broad application, election, or religious initiation. Instead, membership was an automatic right and duty granted exclusively to the adult male citizens of that specific city-state."See Tara Caudle, "The Ekklesia as an Assembly That Invokes Response," Liberty University Journal of Statesmanship & Public Policy 1, no. 1 (2020): Article 12. See Mogens Herman Hansen, The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 125–128; cf. Aristotle, Politics 3.1275a.
So, how do you become a citizen in God's ekklesia? This membership is more significant than any secular honor. Do you have to join in church membership to be part of God's ekklesia? How do you get into God's Kingdom and His Ekklesia? Thankfully, it is simply by faith in Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 12:27 puts it like this, "Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it." Unfortunately, there are many Christians these days that want to restrict church membership and add additional rules of entry, but the Bible is very simple and clear. 1 membership
If modern churches create little churches smaller than the city domain are they diverging from God's Word? Are they diverging from the root meaning and history of ekklesia? The burden of proof is on the ones diverging from scripture and the history of ekklesia. But we will dig into this later. This is just mentioned because church is based on the Greek word ekklesia and the context of ekklesia was always the city.
Being a member of an ekklesia was significant in other ways. As a citizen of the city, and a qualified member, you had value based on your participation. Keep in mind your freedom of deliberative participation in your church as you hear this description of participation in the ekklesia. "In the ancient secular Greek world, a true citizen was defined entirely by his voice and participation in governance: 'He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizen of that state.'"Aristotle, Politics 3.1275b.
But how did the ekklesia manage participation by all its citizens? How could a man speak to the assembly and maintain order? What was done to ensure good and decent order for the speakers? Keep in mind, this relates to the very significant chapter in the Bible on church assembly order, 1 Corinthians 14. Amazingly, the secular ekklesia put a lot of effort into allowing an open opportunity for any qualified citizen to speak. "The democratic nature of the assembly ensured that elites could not monopolize the platform: "The herald... does not exclude from the platform the man whose ancestors have not held a general's office, nor even the man who earns his daily bread by working at a trade; nay, these men he most heartily welcomes, and for this reason he repeats again and again the invitation, 'Who wishes to address the Assembly?'"Aeschines, Against Timarchus 1.27. Did you catch the significance of that? The common man was encouraged to participate and speak in the assembly. This is exactly the model in the early church in 1 Corinthians 14. Unfortunately, this model is prohibited in our modern churches. "In the secular Greek ekklesia, order was maintained not by dictatorial rulers, but by designated chairmen like the epistatēs (the daily overseer) and the proedroi (the committee of front-row presiders)."See Mogens Herman Hansen, The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 140–141, 250. In our modern churches only the ordained can speak. This is an Old Testament concept where priest were ordained. The New Testament is different, where elders were appointed, but the New Testament doesn't say how the elders were supposed to maintain order in the church assembly. We only get some general guidelines in 1 Corinthians 14 and we assume the elders would be expected to ensure these rules were followed. We can get more clarity by learning about the ekklesia along with 1 Corinthians 14.
The idea of ekklesia has always been clear. Men were allowed to speak for the benefit of the ekklesia. What is the situation in our modern day church? No one can speak. Today, no ordinary man, even if he is a church member, is allowed to speak. We have turned the New Testament ekklesia into an Old Testament tabernacle along with an ordained orator. Perhaps it is not that bad and doesn't really matter. Why does it matter if we are preaching the gospel and worshipping God?worship John Piper is convinced we are doing it right when there is faithful teaching. He says, "We preach not only for their growth, but because if they don't grow, they perish." John Piper, Brothers, We Are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry, rev. ed. (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2013), 111. He doesn't mention 1 Corinthians 14, nor does he notice how many churches have men nodding off. The best way to learn, grow, and encourage one another, is simply to follow the Apostles and their way of doing the ekklesia. I have strong reservations about what we are doing. We may think that preaching is meant for believers, but the Greek meaning of the New Testament preaching was really evangelism to unbelievers. The Christian gathering of believers is more like 1 Corinthians where the Apostles assumed speaking and teaching for the encouragement of the body. C.H. Dodd says it well, "The New Testament writers draw a clear distinction between preaching and teaching... Preaching (kerygma) is the public proclamation of Christianity to the non-Christian world. ... Teaching (didache) is the ethical instruction, explanation, and localized grounding of believers."C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1936), 7.
It is very interesting that both the secular and biblical ekklesia had overseers. But the secular ekklesia overseers were different. "Rather than dictating policy or silencing citizens, these secular overseers exercised a non-invasive, procedural stewardship, safeguarding the legal order of the meeting so that every eligible citizen could freely exercise his democratic right to speak."Cf. Aristotle, Constitution of the Athenians 44.1–3. "This structural role directly parallels the New Testament model of the elder or overseer (episkopos), who stands before the congregation to protect the relational peace and order of the community rather than to dominate individual voices."See P. J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), 530–533. The true ekklesia, both secular and biblical, does not elevate the solo speaker (preaching), but rather, protects the rights of all men to speak (1 Corinthians 14).
There is also something fascinating about the word church that I have learned from history. As I read the Bible as a 9 year old, using the KJV, I did not know the interesting history of the word church in the KJV. I did not know that the KJV had not only taken much of its translation text from Tyndale, but also had promoted institutionalism by using the word church. Tyndale explained it like this, "Therefore, I use this word 'congregation' because it expresses the nature of the thing, and avoids the word 'church' which the people have been taught to understand only as the clergy."An Answer unto Sir Thomas More's Dialogue (1531) I did not know that King James had forced the translation of church against the will of the translators, "The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz.: as the word 'Church' not to be translated 'Congregation' etc."Rules to be Observed in the Translation of the Bible (1604), Rule 3 King James was very successful in getting the whole Christian world to think of the ekklesia as an institution led by the clergy.
It is quite amazing that Jesus would choose such a democratic secular word like ekklesia as the basic concept for building His Kingdom. The real meaning of ekklesia directly translates into a properly functioning New Testament community like 1 Corinthians 14. God's new community is a core idea of his Kingdom and Jesus is the head of the ekklesia.(Eph 5:23, 1:22-23, 4:14, Col 1:18, 2:19) Our Christian behavior in the ekklesia matters greatly even if our gatherings are more like the King James's idea of the institution 'church' and there is no proper functioning. Order matters, but we can be responsible for our behavior, as Paul says, that "you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the ekklesia of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15).
Church Membership
What does the Bible say about 'church membership?' This is complicated because both terms are loaded. The basic meaning is different between the Bible and modern church ideas of membership. First, the Bible uses ekklesia, fundamentally meaning called-out people, but the word 'church' historically roots itself in a building (the 'house of the Lord'). The word 'member' is used in a different way in the Bible compared to the common idea of 'church membership.' The Bible means a Christian is a part of the body of Christ. But, the modern church idea has more to do with someone 'joining' a congregation that is, in reality, an institutonal ministry organization. The meanings are different. There is lots of confusion.
One of the most confused books I have read on the topic is the 9Marks book on "Church Membership" by Johnathan Leeman. This book has so many problems, I don't know where to start. "Church Membership", but Johnathan Leeman is so confused, it would be a full length article to respond to all the distortions. Here are a few of the issues; confusion with obey vs persuasion, p 46. confusion with insiders vs outsiders, p 47. assuming practice, p 47 confusion with church discipline, p 50 confusion with formal judicial role, p 50 confusion on local church definition, p 52 confusion on border patrol, p 55 confusion on the new creation, p 57 confusion on authority, p 57-62 confusion on ordinances, p 61 confusion on marriage, p 63 confusion on ekklesia,worship,preaching, p 63 confusion on ekklesia/institutionalism, p 64 confusion on ekklesia/church, p 65-66,69 confusion on local/universal, p 70 confusion on who needs to repent, p 74 Jonathan Leeman, Church Membership: How the World Knows Who Represents Jesus, 9Marks: Building Healthy Churches (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 46, 47, 50, 52, 55, 57-62, 63, 64, 65-66, 69, 70, 74. I have written much on this topic in another article, but I will give a short outline here. The main idea that the Bible describes is that all Christians are members of the ekklesia. They are instantly members in the body of Christ. There is usually about a day needed in the Bible for Christians to be recognized. Jerusalem was a large church, considered an ekklesia at the city level, and in one case, 3000 were added in a day. The short time needed to be recognized and the instant assumtion of membership was typical in the New Testament. It is not typical at all in most of our modern churches.
The modern church idea of membership is related to being part of the congregation and joined to a ministry organization. It does not usually meet at the city or town level, nor does it think of itself as needing to care about the rest of the body of Christ in the town. It does have to submit to the IRS 14 part guidelines, and rule #6 restricts the membership. This church, is really a ministry organization, and is a sub-group-part-of-the-ekklesia. The members of this organization are the formal-institutional-organization kind, not the biblical kind.
Modern churches claim no responsibility for some members in the body of Christ, but accept responsibility for others. Mark Dever's philosophy is typical of the modern pastor. "Mark will say that he is responsible to God on Judgment Day for the 700 people who are members of the church, but he is not responsible for the 300 who come but refuse to join." Jonathan Leeman, "How Mark Dever Passes Out Authority," The Gospel Coalition, January 6, 2014, thegospelcoalition.org. This modern church membership mindset is also willing to call members in the body of Christ "outsiders." They wrongly claim, "Paul clearly draws a boundary between those 'inside' the church and those 'outside' the church. That boundary is 'membership,' it separates the church from the world."Jonathan Leeman, "Two Prooftexts for Church Membership," 9Marks, May 7, 2019, www.9marks.org/article/two-prooftexts-for-church-membership/. Both of these are serious issues.
But has anyone asked these members in the body of Christ why are they not institutional church members? Has the church made obstacles? In the early church, 3000 were added in one day. The 1st century ekklesia had near instant membership and it fit perfectly with the biblical body of Christ idea. The biblical meaning is that all true Christians are members of the ekklesia based on belief if Jesus.
These are a short summary of the 9 points I have made in the expanded article. https://rfaber.com/membership.html
1. The word "member" is used in 1 Corinthians 12 of someone who is part of the body of Christ. Any other use of the word member, like the modern use, causes confusion. The Bible is saying we are members. The modern sense is you can join our church and become a member. Do you see the difference? The modern sense is you have to jump through some hoops to become a member or else are an 'outsider.'
2. The very idea of creating a separate membership of the body of Christ, causes division. Just think about how God's Word talks about division in 1 Corinthians 1-3. If you introduce modern 'church membership', you suddenly create division. Churches that do not have this modern church membership avoid this form of division. Anthony Thiselton raises this as a concern saysing, "The obsession with groups and with status tears and splits the body of Christ, limb from limb and organ from organ."Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 1011.
3. There is a major misunderstanding of scripture where attenders can actually be called 'outsiders', which in context actually refers to unbelievers. This is unfriendly, but is also a distortion of scripture. The idea of church membership and mere attenders is sometimes applied to 1 Corinthians 5:12-13. The verse is discussing 'insiders' and 'outsiders.' The Bible means Christians are insiders and non-Christians are outsiders, but the promoters of modern church membership often attribute this to their idea of church membership and call those unwilling to join, 'outsiders.' This is like calling Christians "unbelievers" only because they are not agreeing to your idea of 'church membership.' David Garland understands the passage well in his commentary. David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 190.
4. Some Christians are sensitive about oaths and vows. Some Christians want to honor the words of Jesus about avoiding oaths/vows/promises and are concerned in their conscience by the typical membership oaths. Jesus said, "But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all... Jesus says, "Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil" (Matthew 5:34,37). These Christians have a sensitive conscience about with the typical 'church membership' oaths and promises. You may not care. You may be used to easily making promises. But for Amish, Mennonite and many others, going against Jesus words is not safe.
5. Another concern with the idea of modern church membership is the boundary of the responsibility of elders. The Old and New Testament speak about elders having town based authority. Modern churches do not operate at the town level. So the elders of a sub-group, not in association with other elders in town is operating on its own. Elders who limit their responsibility to some do not go along with 1 Peter 5:1-4 that speaks about shepherding the flock of God that is "among you." And this also relates to "willingly" and "eagerly" in the same passage. A person is not willing or eager, if one is complaining about the overburdening difficulty and responsibility of the full number who is "among you." Eldership that is distracted with the 501(c)(3) model, may start to look like the distracted shepherd in Ezekiel 34:4."The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them"
6. The formal nature of the modern church membership process is a concern. The early church added 3000 in one day. But for some today, the process extends over months. There is the membership training meetings. There is the pastor visit. The oaths and vows ceremony. This is so completely opposite to the informal nature seen in the Bible. Bible's idea of membership that is simply based on belief (making one a member of the body of Christ).
7. Another issue of modern church membership is the temporary nature of it. If you move to another church in town you have to start the whole process again. In the New Testament church of Jerusalem, with 1000s of church members, they did not have to do this. Their membership was permanent. If you moved to another part of the ekklesia in Jerusalem you remained a member. If you moved further away to another town, you only had to be recognized. If membership was done in a day, recognition would also be very fast. It was not really a matter of becoming a church member, but only an issue of determining if you are a Christian.
8. Modern church membership is tied to the government. The 501(c)(3) government regulations is a problem for some Christians. Some people do not even realize that the 501(c)(3) model requires a distinct membership in the same town. This violates a New Testament ekklesia principle. Some Christians are not ok with the mixing of government and the spiritual. If you applied the modern rule to the Jerusalem church, it instantly be a membership violation. Most of the 14 Part government rules would be a problem with a typical 1st century ekklesia like Jerusalem. Some Christians are not ok with this, and the idea seems to be avoided for financial reasons.
9. Does modern church membership show Christians love? We do not think so. There is the case of some leaders calling those who don't join, "outside the church." There is almost no discussion about the issues. There is only pressure, sermons, and church formality. Christians who choose to avoid the modern church membership idea are sometimes asked to leave the main assembly, called "unspiritual/uncommitted/lone-rangers/etc." This is not love. In contrast this statement by CARM.org is much nicer, "Inclusion in the Body of Christ is not by membership in a denomination, nor by baptism, nor or by dedication. It is not received by ritual, or by ceremony, or by natural birth. It is received by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8). The invisible church is the church made up of true believers. The visible church consists of those who say they are Christian but may or may not be truly saved. Being a member of a church on earth guarantees nothing. Being a member of the Body of Christ guarantees salvation."
You can read more about our 9 points in the full length article.https://rfaber.com/membership.html
Passover And The Lord's Supper
"The current practice of the Lord's Supper as a symbolic meal consisting of token bread and wine cannot be supported by scripture or early church history. Instead, the Lord's Supper in the NT consisted of a full meal, a single loaf of bread and a single cup of wine. Nor is this setting unimportant theologically. On the contrary, the setting of the Lord's Supper in the NT was, in fact, an expression of apostolic theology."Eric Svendson, The Table of the Lord (Publisher, Year), 3.
When I was a teenager, I can recall a strong feeling of disappointment in how the modern church does not follow the Lord's Supper example and pattern in 1 Corinthians 11. I was impressed at how the warning to the Corinthians had turned into a complete dismissal of the meal. I may have read this and wondered about this at age 9-10, but as a teenager, the feelings of disappointment grew. Today, if I read the top commentaries on 1 Corinthians, scholars agree that the Lord's Supper is tied to the Passover. "the cup of blessing coheres precisely with the context of the Passover meal as the framework for the interpretation of the Lord's Supper..." page 756, 758, 759. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.
It is shocking that Paul said the Corinthians were not actually celebrating the Lord's Supper. They were not respectful of the poor. In 2 Corinthians, Paul commends the Corinthians for listening and responding to his correction. So the Corinthians began to wait for the poor and as a result, they began to actually celebrate the Lord's Supper, in the eyes of God. But do we care for the poor in our Lord's Supper? If we observe the Lord's Supper a certain way and export that formal-ceremonial way in our mission efforts, are we responsible for ignoring the poor? The church in Africa where I grew up learned a lot from our ways. They sit in pews and listen to sermons even that is not in the Bible. They don't have the Lord's Supper in a proper way like 2 Corinthians, only because of us and our traditions. I wonder if God might have thoughts as in 1 Corinthians that we, "are not actually celebrating the Lord's Supper." When the Corinthians listened, in 2 Corinthians, they brought enough food for the poor, and each one had enough. Then according to Paul, they began to actually celebrate the Lord's Supper in the eyes of Jesus. However, imagine if the weathier Corinthians reacted like us by saying, "Let's just skip the meal to simplify our worship service."
I have had a Jewish co-worker at work and we sometimes get talking about Christianity and Judaism. I am fascinated by one thing he told me about the Jewish Passover. Apparently, there is a strong emphasis on children in the Passover 'Seder' meal. Children are a focus in the tradition with teaching focused on them to help them appreciate the meaning of the feast. The Passover meal was always a family meal eaten in a home, not a performance and not a formal ceremony for a large assembly. This is where it gets interesting when we think of Christianity and the Lord's Supper that replaces the Passover. Jesus fulfilled all things and that includes the Passover. He was the Lamb.
The interesting thing in the Christian Lord's Supper is how we deny the children of Christian families in a good number of churches. Many churches, especially in the Reformed camp, have such a formal and ceremonial understanding that they actually believe the are doing right to deny children participation in the Lord's Supper. Jesus usually said things about children that surprised the adults. Jesus rebuked the disciples when they wanted to keep children from Jesus. Jesus elevates the children, but we let them starve in the Passover feast replacement (The Lord's Supper). We have invented theological requirements based on distorted traditions that children must be "baptized" and "church members" to participate in something that should be assumed inclusion. The Lord's Supper should be an ekklesia community meal with joy and fellowship a little bit like the Jewish feasts.
Jesus also cares about the poor in spirit. Imagine looking through the eyes of a little child, looking with longing as the cracker passes by, and wondering why you are not allowed. There is no logical explaination for this attitude toward children. We have our theological systems to support our tradition. But do we have Jesus on our side? The disciples thought they were doing right to keep the children away, but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me" (Matt 19:13). The surprising thing is the feeling Jesus had toward their action. Scripture says, "But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant" (Mark 10:13). If all the Old Testament children could participate in their feasts, then why do we deny our children from our feast? And the second question is so obvious, why do we avoid a real feast if the original Lord's Supper is based on the Passover meal?
Some of the Corinthians had died because they ignored the poor, but perhaps God overlooks our way because we are doing it in ignorance. I am sure the Lord's Supper is designed by God to be a fellowship blessing in the church, and to be a continuation of the Passover meal along with the fellowship, food, joy and the usual aspects of a feast. Our systematic theology and historical traditions have made us blind and convinced us that we are doing right to no longer have a real meal. In reality, it is the institutional church (and building) rather than the community ekklesia that is probably holding us back. Our traditions are strong and following the Apostles is weak.
There is a misunderstanding with "discerning the body." 1 Corinthians 11:29-30 says, "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement on himself. That is why many of you are ill, and some have died." The Reformation Study Bible says, "The warning in v. 29 about 'discerning the body' almost surely refers to this failure to maintain the unity of the church as the body of Christ". The amazing trick that we have done is we have exempted ourself. But by our slight of hand, we have made this verse of none effect. Now, with our modern way, we have made it impossible to violate this verse! By simply omitting the food from the Lord's Supper, we have simplified our life and excaped from the danger. The institutional church cannot violate this passage because it is now just a token meal. Our ceremonial sacriment made legitimate through systematic theology has protected us from error. But does Jesus see it that way?
As a teenager and even to this day, I am amazed at how stubborn our modern institutional church is to not even discuss the possibility of going back to the biblical pattern of a feast like Lord's Supper. It reminds me of Jesus talking about human traditions in Matthew 15:3-9. Jesus said, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' But you say, 'If anyone tells his father or mother, "What you have gained from me is given to God," he need not honor his father.' So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God." And then Jesus quotes Isaiah, "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"
I have no direct word from God about all these concerns. It does seem that our traditions have had a powerful effect on us. We have ended the Lord's Supper meal and made it a token meal. We took away the home-family context and restricted the children. The modern sentiment is, 'We have freedom, don't we?' We can change anything about church to fit our modern culture. There is no verse that says we can't. It also works much better to have a token Lord's Supper in the larger modern formal church structure. To most, meeting in homes is out of the question. That is such a strange way of doing church. The only reason early Christians met in homes is supposedly because of persection. This is not completely true because at times the Christians had the favor of the non-Christians in town, but it is a common excuse. Our modern church tradition is strong and following the Apostles is weak.
The early church observed the Lord's Supper as a true meal along with the bread and cup. But sometime in history, things changed. The original commentary in the Geneva Bible of 1599 says, "The Apostle thinketh it good to take away the love feasts, for their abuse, although they had been a long time, and with commendation used in Churches, and were appointed and instituted by the Apostles."Stephen E. Atkerson, New Testament Church Dynamics: Help for Bi-Vocational, House Church, and Small-Church Pastors Drawn from Early Church Practice (Atlanta: New Testament Reformation Fellowship, 2018), 5 We think Steve Atkerson responds well, "To this we wonder, would Paul single-handedly overturn something established by Jesus Himself, taught by the other apostles and practiced in all the churches? Though in humble disagreement with those who penned the commentary, their acknowledgement that the Lord's Supper and the love feast were celebrated together and instituted by the apostles is appreciated. It has been said that the best antidote to abuse is not disuse, but proper use."Atkerson, New Testament Church Dynamics, 5.
Church and State
Currently our churches are linked to the government more than most people realize. Americans know about the separation of church and state and we think we are separated. This is a point of confusion. It is true we are not organized into a "state church" like in the Reformation in Germany, Switzerland and England. But our churches are tied to the IRS 501(c)(3) rules and the "14 part church guidelines." These are very invasive rules.
Most people know about the IRS 501(c)(3) but do not know about the IRS "14-Point church guidelines." These guidelines are used to determine if a church is a valid IRS church, and qualified to receive the IRS 501(c)(3) benefits. Some Christians may want their church to be free from government interference, but most people have resigned to these IRS 501(c)(3) regulations.
To better understand how these 14 part IRS guidelines affect us, we will compare a church under these rules to the 1st century church in Jerusalem. How would the 14 part rules affect the Jerusalem church?
Rule #1: Distinct legal existence: This rule would conflict with the Jerusalem church, in Acts, because the Jerusalem church had no legal recognition. It was viewed by the Roman Empire and local authorities either as a sect of Judaism or as an illegal, unauthorized assembly.
Rule #2: Recognized creed and form of worship: The church in Jerusalem held a clear faith: Jesus is the resurrected Messiah, expressed through breaking bread and prayer. But there was no formal creed requirement. The form of worship was participation by men in homes and a full-meal Lord's Supper, very different from our smooth and crafted sermon-based form of worship.
Rule #3: Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government: This is not the same today, but is not in conflict. The Apostles guided the church and began the appointing of elders which is what we have today.
Rule #4: Formal code of doctrine and discipline: This would seem to not conflict, until you look at the details of modern church bylaws and the independent groups in each town expressing differing doctrines. The early church in Jerusalem held to a unified doctrine because the Apostles were still alive and involved. Today, there is a wild variety of doctrines by each independent church in town, and this idea does conflict.
Rule #5: Distinct religious history: This rule is of little significance.
Rule #6: Membership not associated with any other church: This would be a huge conflict with the Jerusalem church. Membership in the church in Jerusalem was based you being a Christian and living in Jerusalem. The modern church concept of "church hopping" did not exist in Jerusalem because it was all one big church in the city. So the conflict is our splitting up into a whole bunch of little groups in each city/town.
Rule #7: Organization of ordained ministers: This would be a conflict with the Jerusalem church because there was no clergy-laity distinction in the early church. Any man was permitted to address the assembly and elders were appointed, but not ordained as the Old Testament priests were separated from the ordinary people. The ordination concept goes back to the Old Testament, but the New Testament has the priesthood of all believers. In the New Testament, leaders were not supposed to be monopolizing the assembly (1 Cor 14:23) or calling themselves "teacher" (Matthew 23:8) but were to be humble like a child (Matt 18:3-4).
Rule #8: Ordained ministers who completed prescribed studies: This rule would conflict with the Jerusalem church because there were no ordained ministers who had completed any formal studies. The Apostles were famously noted by local authorities as being "uneducated and untrained men" (Acts 4:13). They had no formal academic credentials.
Rule #9: Literature of its own: This rule would conflict because the church in Jerusalem had no literature of its own. It had the Old Testament and the words of the Apostles. The oral teaching of the Apostles was eventually written down and shared with other churches. There was a common set of literature. The early churches did not have individual sets of particular or unique literature.
Rule #10: Established places of worship: This rule would conflict because the early church did not own real estate or dedicated church buildings. They utilized borrowed public spaces (the Temple courts) and private homes.
Rule #11: Regular congregations: This rule does not seem to contradict, but the gathering into assemblies worked in very different ways. They met in homes and probably gather very locally so they would often be neighbors. Our modern churches tend to ignore locality because we can easily drive 30 minutes to a church 2-3 towns away. For us this is normal. So the way they met for the "Regular congregation" differed greatly, but both had regular congregations.
Rule #12: Regular religious services: This rule also does not seem to contradict. But the Jerusalem church was more regular, sometimes meeting "day by day."
Rule #13: Schools of religious instruction of the young: This rule would conflict because the church in Jerusalem had no schools for religious instruction of the young. Formal "Sunday Schools" or youth ministry departments are a modern invention (dating primarily to the 19th century). Children in the 1st century were educated in the faith structurally through family units and the house based church gatherings.
Rule #14: Schools for the preparation of its ministers: This rule conflicts as the church in Jerusalem had no seminaries or Bible colleges. Nor was there any sign of interest in this formal kind of training. Ministry preparation was entirely based on an apprenticeship and mentorship model (e.g., sitting under the Apostles' daily teaching and working under the authority of an Apostle.)
So the early Jerusalem church differed greatly and there are significant conflicts with the IRS 14 part guidelines.
Participation in the Ekklesia
The idea of 1 Corinthians 14 is that of men sharing for the building up of the church. This is strongly resisted in our modern church. I know very few Christians who do this. There are some, but many of these Christian groups are considered alternative. I want to be part of a church that is somewhat local and is faithful to God's Word. The idea here is that we will never sort out all the issues between Christian groups, but God calls us to pursue likemindedness (John 17, Phil 1,2,etc). So ideally, if we have groups within the church, these groups should be in discussion and dialog. If we refrain being in dialog with each other, we may be creating division. 1 Corinthians 1 warns about having groups that become too distinct and separate. Are we officially shunning each other? If so, that is serious. Our view is that we can shun for certain biblical reasons, but even then we should not shut down communication completely. We can exclude from association and assembly, but we should not block channels of communication toward reconcilation. Sometimes we avoid all communication with others churches in our same town, and act as if the indepenent nature of church warrants this. Where is that supported in scripture? That is fundmentally against Christian love. Christian love is a basic requirement for approval with God (1 John). Something is wrong with most of our American evangelical/Reformed churches. Most will never talk to each other and only warn the members about "church hopping." We assume there was massive church hopping in the Jerusalem church because the church was defined at the city level.
Assuming you have your Christian friends understood, and the churche(s) in your town, then what should be done about 1 Corinthians 14? If you are a complete cessationist, and believe that even prophecy has ceased, you are taking a great risk. If the meaning of prophecy is mainly "speaking forth", then you are taking a daring move to eliminate this chapter from the Bible. Does your denomination suggest that "prophecy" has ceased? What does it mean for today? If you do believe in the prophetic cessationist idea, then most of 1 Corinthians 14 can be ignored and we think that is a risky interpretation.We suggest reading good scholars on the topic: See D.A. Carson, Wayne Grudem, Anthony Thisselton, etc. We warn about complete cessationists like Richard Gaffin, some in Presbyterianism and some in the Reformed Baptist tradition. But if prophetic can be translated "speaking forth", This word literally means "speaking forth" or "proclaiming publicly," to which the connotation of prediction was added sometime in the Middle Ages. In the NT, it did not always refer to foretelling the future, but rather to proclaiming the truth of God. MacArthur, MacArthur Study Bible, 1 Cor. 12:10, n. then we can continue on to the important 1 Corinthians 14. We will will translate "prophecy" as "speaking." We will say the same of the modern preacher today, he is "speaking."
Overall, 1 Corinthians 14 is difficult to explain because of tongues, prophecy and the men's and women's roles. There is much difficulty in this chapter, but the difficulty is only if you don't follow and accept the plain meaning of the text. We do follow the plain words of the text. For the modern Christian, the conclusions are difficult, but the understanding can be rather simple (if you accept the authority of God's Word and avoid looking for a itching ears teacher). I have heard many preachers suggest that 1 Corinthians is one of their least favorite books. For me, it is one of my favorite, because it deals with so many core behavioral and and practical issues. I love it because of its help for the church.
So of course I am patriarchal/traditonal, not complimentarian or egaltarian. So if you don't agree on that, please lets not dwell on that too much. Yes, I think the passage is talking about men speaking and women being silent, just like the tongues speakers without an interpreter must remain silent. For me this is so simple to read and understand. I don't fight the text, I just read it and understand it.
But the tongues issue is another issue for some. For me, I think tongues have ceased, but I could be proven wrong. It is completely up to God, but my guess is that 1 Corinthians 14:21 which says, "By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.", refers to Israel. In other words, God is using the tongues miracle as a testimony to stubborn Israel unbelievers and it has very little to do with our modern day. If I ever truly saw the miracle of tongues as a true miracle, then I would simply say, ok, God has a continued use for it. But as it stands I see 100% of its use breaking the order guidelines of the Bible (1 Corinthians 14:27-28). I do believe tongues are actual languages based on 1 Corinthians 14:10 which says, "There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning." So the only rule I would make if anyone claimed to speak in a tongue is that it must be an actual language, supernaturally ocurring, and follow the rule of requiring an interpreter as the text says. From my understanding, every case of speaking in tongues today is a violation of these biblical guidelines. Also, the text says tongues is not for believers. So it is not the main thing to expect in a Christian gathering.
So the primary issue and question is "prophecy." What does "prophecy" mean in the context of 1 Corinthians and what does it meant for today? There is a clash of two main views that are plausible and a third we reject. If anyone thinks prophecy is a supernatural gift of Old Testament style, pattering after Elijah the prophet, we do not think that applies to 1 Corinthians and these New Testament days. The two main plausible possibilities are that prophecy has ceased or that it continues in a limited New Testament form, that is tested, and that it means nothing more than speaking for God. In other words, it is often attributed to what a preacher does speaking to the people for their building up, encouragement and consolation. Prophecy in 1 Corinthians is defined in verse 3 as someone speaking to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. So our translation of the word would simply be "speaking", with the rest of the meaning assumed and defined as we just said.
So if you are willing to understand the word that way, simply following 1 Corinthians 14:3, then the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14 is simplified. So assuming only men can speak, assuming tongues have ceased, assuming prophecy has not ceased, but is limited and partial as 1 Corinthians 13:9 suggests, and assuming this "speaking" must be tested by the others (assuming men who would speak up with their testing evaluations), then the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14 becomes more simple. But there are other questions. Some would be strict about the number of speakers when 1 Corinthians 14:29 says, "let two or three [prophets] speak", or we could say it "let two or three men speak" (trying to simplify). But we don't think that is what the author is meaning. If you take that completely literally, that is fine. We could live with it. But before this verse in the same chapter it says, this men speaking is "for believers" and "if all [speak]" (or literally "if all prophecy") 1 Corinthians 14:24. And right after the "two or three" in 1 Corinthians 14:29, it says, "For you can all [speak] (prophecy) one by one, so that you may learn and all be encouraged, (1 Corinthians 14:31). This is why we think it means, lets get started with two or three, and if this satisfies, then good enough. And since tongues do not apply any more, those "only two or at most three" can be replaced by 2 or 3 prophets, since that is the primary focus of the chapter. So in summary, our interpretation is, 'let 2 or 3 men speak', and let 2 or 3 more speak (since tongues have ceased). And if you are still not satisfied, perhaps a few more, perhaps not, depending on the opionions and sentiments of the people. We would be open to a few more.
So this is our understanding. On each day of gathering, come expecting to share in a full-meal to celebrate the Lord's Supper. And let the men expect to have an opportunity to speak for the upbuilding and encouraging and consolation of the people. And let the men be free to give a lesson, or a thought, or a short teaching. But any lessor or thought or short teaching must be something where you are sensitive to someone else who feels led to say something. The idea is that as you are speaking, you are watching the other men. You can easily see if someone else wants to say something. So the meeting is organized, with one man speaking at a time. When someone says something and sits down, there should be a pause for testing thoughts that may follow. Other than testing thoughts, the next man who wants to encourage or build up with a thought, or offer consolation thoughts is free to stand up and speak.
If a woman want to say something, the idea stated is that she can ask her husband at home. This of course implies she will not speak during this special time in the meeting. But as this time of the meeting ends, if there is the food and extended fellowship time, the woman might talk freely with men and women, but not on the same topic. If she has a serious question about something a man said, she can ask her husband at home. However, during the food and fellowship time, men and women would generally be free to talk about almost anything. There is a need to guard the time when men are permitted to speak, but there is not a strict silence after this time has ended.
Why would there be such a strange rule? Well, it only appears strange with our culture of women speaking as freely as men in most situations, like Sunday school. But our idea is that God wants the men to have an opportunity to lead, and interact with men. The women being silent allows the men to lead. If they are not silent, the men will never have this opportunity. They can subsitute some learning by gathering as men only, but it will not be as strong of a training in leadership as having the opportunity to speak in front of other men ready to test them, and women ready to question them when they get home with their husbands. Of course we would think the single women are just as restricted. If they are younger women living in their father's house, they can ask their fathers at home. This idea is not stated, but based on all of scripture, we assume this is what is meant.
Ok, so we have just explained 1 Corinthians 14, and now we need to listen to the testing. There is more we could say, but we have said our "five words" (1 Corinthians 14:19)
The Home based Ekklesia
The context of men speaking in church only makes sense in a home setting. The Lord's Supper as a full-meal only makes sense in a home setting. We are not going to convince anyone who resists us, and we will not try.
We will just say that the design of the church order set up by the Apostles only works in a home or small setting.
The temple was destroyed in 70 AD, because that was not God's plan for the church assembly. The temple was an Old Testament plan and God had a clearly stated plan to destroy the temple. This was a judgement on Israel. We should never say, the church met at the temple. Of course they did because there was an overlap time when the new Jewish Christians were granted freedom to continue to observe the Law even if they were being freed from the Law.
But for us to linger on the temple is not right. And the church met in home universally for centuries. It was not till around 300 AD with Constantine that the church went back to "temples" following the pagan mindset.
No, the temple idea was completely not what the early church did. They always met in homes. Every book of the New Testament that mentions a Christian gathering on the Lord's Day, was set in a home setting.
This worked better or the Lord's Supper meal. This worked better for men speaking to encourage the church.
What if there were 3000 added in one day? Well, that meant a whole bunch of homes just got more busy focused on Christian meetings.
How does that affect us today? Well today, in our town, no one meets in homes. I would say we are so affluent and formal stuffy types, that we only have "temples" and "tabernacles", which are really Old Testament concepts. Ideally, we should stop using those terms. We do not need to stop using our church buildings, but they are expensive. We should certainly not guilt trip Christians into supporting your church ministry as if the building needs to continue.
At the same time, if we do have a Christian church building, it will need a stead up-keep of maintenance and funding. So if you choose to support this kind of ministry, it is best to make it known that this "church" is really a particular ministry that is assuming a church building but it is not fundamentally an ekklesia. The true ekklesia should happen in a small gathering in a home or possibly in a room of a larger Christian church building.
The modern church building can easily accomodate a ministry of evangelistic preaching as an outreach to the community and for those who do not want to abandon the pew sitting experience.
But Christians should be encouraged to attend a primary ekklesia meeting which would be giving men an opportunity to speak in the 1 Corinthians 14 style and a context for a natural full-meal Lord's Supper so that there can be a joyous and celebratory theme with the Lord's Supper meal. If the Passover really is a pattern (and we believe it is), then there needs to be a mini feast (with simple food), and a celebratory mindset to the Lord's Supper.
Christians will continue to like their traditional church experience just the way it is. And we would not stop them. But we want to encourage a mind and a thought about the patterns set up by the Apostles. The New Testament mentions home based meetings, but there are two possibilities. Either these home based meetings are so important that the narrative assumptions was considered sufficient. Or because the home meetings really don't matter. We should not blindly assume the latter. It may be that the home meeting is very important to the Apostles. But, in God's devine plan, and he often is testing us, he has left it as a quiet early church pattern. Our thoughts are these:
We are painting a picture of what seems beautiful to us, but if you can afford an outwardly beautiful church building and you can assemble a whole host of Christians to worship and sing together, we might take a break from our theoretical home based meeting and come join you. Just don't ask us to share in the cost of the building or staff. Please think of it like a ministry. If you desire to spend the money on that, and you have no guilt in the expense of it, then favor us who might theoretically be not having a clear conscience about the expense, and just give us the blessing. Otherwise, grant us the right to follow the Old Testament example of meeting outdoors, on a nicer day if we might want to gather in larger groups. Or opinion is that if the Apostles visted today, they would teach us to quickly fix some things. They would quickly make us correct various things that we have done and introduced as our own traditions of man. The Apostles would probably explain more clearly from scripture what they mean't and they would probably say, "how slow we are to understand the scriptures."
The City based Ekklesia
The Jerusalem church was a city church. Every church in the New Testament was a city church. And even in the Old Testament, elders, were tied to the city. Not only that, but the roots of the word, ekklesia are tied to the polis (city).
According to the Bible, your church is really considered at the city/town level, even if you ignore it. If you have a church that ignores the other Christians in town, you are not following the New Testament pattern and you are not following the root meaning of ekklesia. The early church met in homes but was considered a church at the city/town level. Since Jerusalem had thousands of members, there were many home gatherings. There were many home-based meetings of Christians who gathered for the the Lord's Supper meal and the assembly meeting described in 1 Corinthians 14. At times, the early church might have gathered outside for a large assembly, but this does not seem ordinary. The normal practice seems to be that they gathered in homes for the observance of the full-meal Lord's Supper and the participatory meeting.Robert Banks, Paul's Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in Their Historical Setting, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994).
We said this earlier, but to remind, the ekklesia in both the Bible and the origins of the word, was a city-based assembly. "In ancient Greece-most notably in classical Athens-the ekklesia was explicitly rooted in the polis (the city-state). You did not join this civic assembly through a broad application, election, or religious initiation. Instead, membership was an automatic right and duty granted exclusively to the adult male citizens of that specific city-state." See Tara Caudle, "The Ekklesia as an Assembly That Invokes Response," Liberty University Journal of Statesmanship & Public Policy 1, no. 1 (2020): Article 12. See Mogens Herman Hansen, The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 125–128; cf. Aristotle, Politics 3.1275a.
This is significant. The church was city-based both in the Bible and in the roots of the word ekklesia. Jesus chose the secular Greek word ekklesia and not the religious word synagogue, even though both would seem to work.
Instead of following the biblical instructions in Titus 1:5 (appointing elders in every town), we have become fragmented. There are so many independent church gatherings in each city or town that even the Christians are confused. Churches are independent and unconnected, and proud of it. Some of the reason is legitimate, some is division. There is nothing wrong with maintaining your particular doctrinal beliefs, but if the unbelievers notice division at the most visible level of separate institutions, there is a problem. The unbelievers have noticed. And they say Protestants are so divided that Protestantism and evangelicalism cannot be true.
We have good arguments for supporting our divisions. Our arguments have some legitimacy, but we rush to divide before considering other arrangements. Yes, we should divide at times, but we have gone too far and have ignored other godly Christians in town. In almost every city and town I go, I can find multiple evangelical churches that are reasonably faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I could be happy in any of these faithful evangelical/Reformed churches. But dividing into groups has so proliferated that we justify it without much of a thought.
According to the New Testament, sub-groups are fine. Jesus heard the disciples trying to denigrate another group and Jesus rebuked the disciples for their divisive attitude. Jesus said, "Do not forbid him, for the one who is not against you is for you" (Luke 9:50). We need to allow different groups without splitting the New Testament tradition of city-based ekklesias. John says, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us" (1 John 2:19). This shows the seriousness of division to the early church. The divisions can imply a group of people are not true Christians (if you read John as I do). Divsion from false Christians is good and divsion from true Christians is bad. Yet we ignore this biblical principle and allow easy division within our towns.
Do you think the Corinthians were worse than us? On the issue of division, we have gone farther. We actually do follow Paul, or Apollos or Cephas. We follow them into separate denominations or non-denominational groups. We are Baptists or Presbyterians or Evangelical Free or Calvary or community types, but we are not ever simply Christians of the local town. We want Christians to have their theological convictions, but we do not need the hard group barriers. I can go to so many different groups, and even to groups that are seriously wrong on some things, but I know they are genuine Christians. If I attend a Methodist church, for example, many who attend may be rather shallow. There will be a mixture. Some genuine Christians will land in churches that have notable theological issues.
The point is this. When you follow the traditions of man in your modern church and divide up into various groups, you become trapped by the limits of your group. But since the New Testament defines church at the city/town level, you are forced to open up and relate to other Christians who you don't like at all. They may be Charismatics or anti-Calvinist or a bit confused on the Sabbath. But still, if we care about the city/town aspect of ekklesia, we must distiguish who we can associate with and who we cannot. If someone is LGBTQ friendly, I would probably not associate with them, as a church. If someone is not clear on the basic Gospel and core Christian doctrine, I would separate. The association and dividing needs to happen but it doesn't need to be perfect. But today, we have mass confusion. The outsider sees that Christians have no clear association (of true Christians). All they see is 100 groups in the vicinity. In reality, the 100 groups should be 50 that associate and 50 that shun each other (as an example). That would cause a stir, and the 50 that are massively compromising the gospel would feel the pain of not being associated with the 50 following the gospel. We know this could work theoretically, but in practice it would be impossible if the Holy Spirit was not involved. With God, all things are possible.
Today, however, we continue the endless division. We will continue to justify ourself and feel good for our divisions. I might think of myself as a house-church oriented Christian who meets at the town-level, but since no-one else in town believes the same, so I must give up and attend the best local church I can find. The church I found is a good church, but like all churches in town, they divide the members and non-members. And they form a separate group, sometimes a separate denomination which causes division.
Paul commands Timothy to watch his doctrine carefully. But we have stopped the expression of views to be heard. I am not too concerned, but I cannot talk about a whole myriad of issues and ideas because of group-division controls in place. Each group-division creates a stopping of conversation on a set of topics. For example, our local church had a huge debate about baptism before we landed. One of the notable speakers of a credo perspective soon left the church. I think there was a subtle understanding that the pedo perspective had one the upper had, having more senior pastor influence, and so staying would be no longer an open debate. Ever since that time, when this friend left, this issue has been shut. No one talks about it and all leaders are trained in how to carefully speak to the topic. They are trained to pretend to be open to the two sides but in reality the worst thing is to have any debate on the topic. Our point is this. In the New Testament, the debate was allowed to continue. But in our human thinking, debate is bad. Debate can be bad, if there are unkind heated words. But debate can be good. God has set so many difficult topics that are ripe for debate. But in the typical church you are called to sit in the pew or be a trained-controlled and authorized teacher in Sunday School. Any one who simply goes by the Bible is not suffiently authorized. Men and women can openly debate, which violates 1 Corinthians 14. This is one of the best churches in town.
In contrast, according to scripture in 1 Corinthians 14, only men are to speak in the main assembly meeting and there is a very important time of testing what is said. In this open testing time, the elders are not given special priviledge. The elders are men who have been selected for their wisdom and they must be able to teach. But that cannot butt in and influence the testing. They may not be good at testing. They can easily be wrong about doctrinal things. If you have selected well, this should be rare. But according to the New Testament, elders are not the testers. Testing is open to all men. The elders are however, respsonsible for moderating the orderliness of the assembly. And it would be expected that elders would be often contributing to the speaking that 1 Corinthians says is for the upbuilding of the church. Some debate on controversial issues is acceptable, but it should trigger additional meetings of only men to haggle over the controversial issue. This is seen in Acts where the elders and apostles gathered for a more in depth meeting.
In our modern churches we are so untrained at the meeting assembly time in 1 Corinthians 14, that we should be expected to be failures if we ever tried it. We are trained at ignoring the Bible and well trained at following our particular church tradition in contradiction of 1 Corinthians 14. In modern church life, the deceptive ways of human thinking have been dominating church life for centuries.
Behavior in the Ekklesia
Paul says, that "you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the ekklesia of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15). Let's focus here on the proper behavior in the 1 Corinthians 14 type meeting. As we have established, men are permitted to speak during this meeting, but the testing time must follow everything said. What happens if something is said that is controversial and there is disagreement? What one man thinks something is firm and established and perfectly fine for afirming and another man completely disagrees? How do we say that the meeting is well behaved and in order?
Let's use the example of the six days of creation. Many Christians these days are open to the evolutionary biological process in the formation of man. This is a suprising weakness of the modern church. There are other churches that are strong on this point, but then they have other massive issues. If we don't have agreement in the basics of scripture then we don't have harmony. We may gather with other Christian men and agree on the gospel and God's grace, but we will have fundamental issues if we can't agree that God created a literal Adam about 6000 years ago according to Bible chronology. We are not saying how long God lingered before Genesis 1:1, when the earth was formless and void. We are talking about the Bible's clear chronology once Adam was living and the Bible starts to record geneologies. This is a modern world test of faith. In our local church, we are weak on the topic, and I have found about 50% divide on the topic by testing individuals. The leadership has failed to explain this topic. There is confusion. This is a sad case of failure to follow the scriptures.
Another example is divorce and remarriage. Why do Christians have the same divorce and remarriage rate as non Christians? There is a problem with the usual Christian interpretation of the 7 or so New Testament passages on this topic. We would like to see both sides of the debate rather than the gentle-on-remarriage side dominating. We'd like to see the traditional, biblical, strongly-avoid-remarriage view be more supported at church. Instead, the tolerant view of remarriage seems to control the conversation.
Our main point is this. We should allow Christian men to express their thoughts from the Bible and freely speak about these thoughts in the assembly. If there is a controversy, then it does not automatically go to the elders to resolve. If the assembly has mature men, some of whom are not elders, they can step in and lead the assembly toward order. But just say there is a need for order and no other men step in to restore the order? It is at this time that the elders should step in to bring order to the assembly. This is an assumed authority given to the elders to do this. Anyone involved in testing must be given good opportunity to test. If the elders step in too soon, they are interfering in the free testing by the ordinary men. If the elders never step in and allow disorder to continue, they are failing. The elders are responsible for order, but they are also ordinary men who may be sharing their words of encouragement like any other man. Their unique role as elder, is to step in to ensure order if anything goes wrong with the discussion. In some cases, elders may even suggest a separate meeting. Something like this seems to have happened in Acts 20 when the men involved had the opportunity to go into more detail on the issue at hand.
But there is a problem when some elders get too much influence and are able to control what is said in the assembly. According to 1 Corinthians 14, any man can speak. Any man can be involved in testing. There is no mention of elders having particular influence and control over what is said. Instead, elders are called upon to ensure there is order. If something is said wrong, then men from the assembly are expected to step up and challenge the thing said which is called the testing. Elders are given special rights and respect to help keep the meeting flowing for speaking or testing. This time in the week is for the men. The men are part of the city/town ekklesia. The men are subject to dealing with other men, but not women. The men should be from the local town. There is such a thing as extended association of towns and two towns nearby may have cross over, which is fine. But locality should have great importance. Locality should have a great importance especially when elders are selected. But locality should also weigh in on those speaking and testing. If one is from the town or a neighbor town fine. If one is from far away, one would wonder about that mans responsibility to his own town.
So officially selected elders should be town based and should help with maintaining order if things get out of hand. They should be able to teach in a home size meeting. They certainly should not be controlling the teaching. Any man should be free to test anything said by any other man in the assembly. If there is a fear of testing, there is probably a problem of leaders having too much power. The example of Diotrophes comes to mind. (Ref. 2 or 3 John ) Men who may focus on testing may be more gifted in testing than speaking for the encouragement of the church. These men may even tend to refrain from speaking in general, but care deeply about watching doctrine so they focus on testing.
Any man should be free to test any other man speaking in the meeting. This is the proper dynamic of this very important ekklesia meeting. The real ekklesia is completely different from our modern church meetings. Today, in most churches there is so much control and scripted presentation that the ordinary man has no place to speak. Instead of trusting God and the Holy Spirit working in men, we trust our human traditions and forbid all men from speaking except for the orator.
But there is another way. If you read your Bible looking the the Apostles ways of doing things, you will notice significant differences. You will notice we are called to love each other. One of the most significant ways to love another man who is part of the holy temple is to allowing each man the God ordained speaking opportunity in the ekklesia meeting.
New Covenant Theology
God has revealed new truths in the New Testament but has still left some mysteries. We are left with enough unknowns so we can wonder and ponder. Of Jesus, scripture says, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." We can enjoy learning about God or we can fight over our differences. We can be glad or we can get mad. We are called to watch our doctrine closely, but we are also called to love and be like minded. Our focus in this book is ideas affecting the ekklesia.
There are some theological systems of understanding the over- arching story of the Bible that may affect you without knowing it. We have seen the effects of Covenant Theology, in the area of church membership and the Lord's Supper, but normally these theological systems are hidden and quiet. Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology are the two dominant systems that have deep underlying side effects on how you understand the Bible. In our case, the idea of covenant membership seems to have driven the church to push church membership against our conscience convictions. It is possible for you to be happily attending a particular church and have a Covenant Theology oriented group of elders suggest that you leave the church, to find some other elders to submit to. This seems to be a Covenant Theology thing, not understanding 1 Corinthians 12:27, "Now you are the body of Christ and individualally members of it." Douglass Moo has written about this covenant membership issue. And I have written about thishttps://rfaber.com/membership.html Sometimes we need to discuss our differences. It seems we can preach about it and write books about it, but in the same church we can't talk about it.
I was thankful to have heard a theologically significant assessment of the two leading theological systems with a critique of both by a Dr. Ferris L. McDaniel at Northeastern Bible College around 1987. Dr. McDaniel was the main Greek Theology professor at the little Bible college, and probably my favorite professor. I respected his critique near the top of most helpful things from this 1 year Bible program. I was amazed to discover a similar theological assessment in the form of New Covenant Theology and the Sovereign Grace teachings of John Reisinger, years later. Now, it appears the ministry material of John Reisinger has been passed on to CrossToCrown Ministries. We have enjoyed some New Covenant Theology presentations from this ministry and will provide links to these talks. If you have learned either CT or DT (Covenant Theology or Dispensational Theology), we suggest listening to these talks or reading A. Blake White's "What is New Covenant Theology." These are a few sessions to get started. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-GtYO5ZJIg&t=556s 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXVrvy0URV8 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1arT8qZVj-U 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CgAp1muDZk 5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuKgYL2lSw0
Our summary of these theological systems is this. Do not get into these theological systems if you are an avid Bible reader and don't like theological studies/books. For some people, theological books are fun and talking about theology is relationally encouraging. For others, theology and doctrine is not their cup of tea. That is ok. We are called to love each other. One of the most enjoyable things in life is to study God's Word, develop your convictions, and then talk about it over coffee and breakfast, with others who love God's Word, but think different. I think God left enough mystery to test our character and see if we will use these things as tools for making Christian friends rather than dividing over it. May God grant that we pursue knowing God as we pursue loving each other.
Elders, Pastors and Seminaries
Jesus chose ordinary men for his disciples. He also said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 18:3) Many people like to be called teacher these days, but Jesus said, "you are not to be called rabbi[teacher], for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers... Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ." (Matt 23:8,10) Jesus did choose one highly trained 'troublemaker' named Saul, and He turned Saul into a passionate Apostle Paul. But, generally, Jesus promoted the less trained and was hard on the highly trained men. (Ref Like Nicodemus and the Pharasees)
The Bible does have some interpretive challenges for our day. For example, "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?" (1 Cor 12:29). We would say apostle = "missionary", prophet = "speaker", teacher = "speaker with a teaching", miracles = not for today as it was then, tongues = not for today because the purpose has been fulfilled.This would take a long time to explain our reasoning. But our short answer this: Apostles: These are no longer authoritative like the original Apostles. In this book we try to use captial for the original Apostles. Ordinary apostles still exist today, but we call them "missionaries." We prefer to substitute missionary for the biblical 'apostle' to avoid confusion. Prophets: Some say these are preachers today. Some say this role has ceased, like Richard Gaffin and most Presbyterians. We would say they are ordinary men and women who speak for the encouragement or consolation of others. We argree with D.A. Carson, John Piper, Wayne Grudem and all those who do not insist on complete cessationism for this idea. We are shocked at the Christians who make this important chapter (1 Corinthians 14) null and void. How broad is the "teaching one another" in Colossians? Amazingly, teaching one another is used in the same sentence with singing. It says, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God" (Col 3:16). The modern church cannot bear to let this be said without some restricting it, because the modern church does not follow 1 Corinthians 14. How broad is the idea of "by this time you ought to be teachers" in Hebrews? Have we not had churches estabished for many years? Scripture says, "For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food" (Heb 5:12). But our modern churches can not accept this idea. It must be resisted to keep the one-man-speaker and teacher model. We tend to push men into teaching roles, give them the title of "teacher" or "pastor" (meaning teacher) and then we follow this teacher like the Corinthians, "'I follow Paul', or 'I follow Apollos,' or 'I follow Cephas,' (1 Cor 1:12). Jesus warns against calling any man "teacher", elevating one man above the others. Scripture says, "But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ (Matt 23:8-10). But we have our arguments and excuses and we resist the clear order of the meeting described in 1 Corinthians 14.
We tend to only select men with M.Div's for the highest positions in our churches. It seems we do the opposite of Jesus. Nothing I say will convince the ordinary Christian from changing this, because we have signed up for the consumer Christian role to sit in the pew and listen to the pastor every week instead of the 1 Corinthians 14 model. Since we sit, we want the best speaker possible to make the best of the sermon experience.
Another thing we do is bring in outside men for the top positions. We expect ordinary elders to come from the church, so they can be tested, but the senior pastor, is imported. He not only needs an M.Div, but he is usually selected from outside the church. The biblical model, seen in Titus 1:5, assumes appointed elders in each town, from the town, for the town. It is a good assumption that Titus did not move elders around to get the perfect elder for the job in a certain town. No, the older men from the town were selected/chosen to be responsible for the proper order of then town based ekklesia. These men would not necessarily speak more, but that had to guard the ekklesia and they should be "older-in-the-Lord" and the most qualified. For example, a divorced man, whose prior wife was still alive, would not be qualified over an older man who did not have that issue. Or if there were two older men who were married with children, everything else being about equal, the children would be considered in how they obey and respect their father. This is one of the qualifications for elder. The elder must be able to teach, but the assumption in scripture was the house church setting, not a modern Sunday school class. The assumption was an assembly following 1 Corinthians 14.
Another thing we do is push the "first among equals" idea even though the Bible pushes against that idea. There is no indication in the Bible that there was a chief elder (pastor). Titus was told to "appoint elders in every town" (Titus 1:5). But somehow we have the idea of finding a professional pastor from outside the church by using a pastoral search, and this "elder" gets a lot more pay than the other elders who are usually volunteers. The technical Bible passage justifying a pay-based-career is the "double honor" and the "ox treading out the grain" and the "laborer deserves his wages" in 1 Timothy 5:17-18. This could be double the inclination to give someone a special thank you. Or it could mean giving someone a few extra bucks to help his busy life since he has spent more time preparing for teaching. It could mean double the 'honorarium', but we generally make this in to a full time salaried job. With this full time job comes the unspoken requirement of a decent educational background.
I recall my time in a 1 year Bible College, listening to my parents suggestion, and observing other young men pursing a pastoral path. I thought to myself, I don't see that justified in scripture. But no one dared question it in public. Everyone seemed fine with it. But since I knew God's Word quite well, I knew I would not pursue that path, based on the New Covenant being so unclear about our modern pastoral career assumptions. The Old Covenant had the ordained priest, the New Covenant did not. But my roomate in Bible college was a 4th year student with a plan to become a pastor. He was a very nice guy, but I personally did not read my Bible the same way. I sensed a cultural thing more than a biblical thing driving some to become pastors. I did not see the idea of studying in academia to get an M.Div to be trained to become a "first among equals" church pastor. The Bible seemed to be so diffent in 1 Corinthians 14, etc.
In the words of a 89 year old man, "you put in your 3-4 years (of seminary training). You become a pastor. Now you are a young squirt telling the older people what to do."
The Biblical elder, however, is a very legitimate church leadership role. Elder simply means an older one. The real meaning is probably older-one in the Lord. But an elder is officially responsible for the city ekklesia. Are the ordinary men responsible for the city ekklesia also? Yes. So what is the difference. The Bible is not super clear, but based on Old Testament and New Testament and the history of the secular ekklesia, the elder is supposed to be a final say and an officially responsible person both for the order of the meeting and any financial issue or any significant issue of concern. If he is a younger man, you are following a worldly mindset. If he is older and mainly business qualified, you are following a worldly mindset. The qualifications are clear in the New Testament.
But Paul's ministry and his using helpers like Timothy, Titus, Silas, Luke, etc, show a biblical way of teaching that is the opposite of the modern seminary. It is more like missions with trainees. It is more like starting new churches in a home and community context without the academic focus or the oratory priority. There was no need for titles or resumes, but instead there was doing ministry work together. And in the process, Timothy is told to teach "faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim 2:2).
This is a different kind of seminary that uses young men, puts them into training, and does not involve degrees or sitting at a desk reading books. Timothy had known the scriptures from his youth, so even though he was a young man, he was very much into the scriptures (2 Tim 1:5, Acts 16:1-3). If Timothy was perhaps 35, he may have known God's Word for 25 years already. So, as a helper to Paul, Timothy not only had authority, but he was under the Apostolic authority of Paul, who was under Christ. Today, with the seminary method, we give a young man an idea that you can go into debt at a seminary, get an M.Div, and be ready for a salary paid position as a speaker who takes over the 1 Corinthians 14 meeting. According the biblical text, it does not seem that elders were paid positions. The Bible mentions giving "double honor." But that does not mean salary. At most, it may have been an honorarium for a busy elder working a normal job (1 Timothy 5:17-18). But the career idea does not fit. John Piper's book, "Brothers We Are Not Professionals" assumes the full-time paid position for the senior pastor. Instead, the true biblical ekklesia protects the rights of the ordinary men from the one-man show (1 Cor 14:26-40).
The Bible also brings up an interesting negative leader with a man 'Diotrophes' who put people out of the church. We wonder if he did this through some kind of church structures or the equivalent of strict-bylaws or possibly church membership, but we don't know. There are two kinds of pushing out of the church. One is denying the speaking time for ordinary men (1 Corinthians 14). The second is saying things from the pulpit that imply certain men don't fit the theology of the church and would be better off somewhere else (instead of leaving it up to the individual Christian). Whatever he did, he put people out of the church by making them not included and not welcome. Instead, some of our churches welcome the non-Christian and suggest certain Christians would be better off at another church. There can easily be a subtle spirit that likes to control church to the point of pushing certain people out of the church. Instead of the humble non-invasive ekklesia model, there can be the priest-like ordination and orator model that resists the 1 Corinthians 14 ekklesia. The American pastorate has certainly become very professional compared to my memories of the early African church in the Kaonde area of Zambia. But even the earliest African churches were guided by the ordained pastor and orator model. We are blind to the problem and we export our broken systems to the world. God does not come down with a gold trumpet, he only says look to my Word.
By the time a young man has spent $100,000+ on college and seminary training, there will naturally be a desire to seek a stable financial income. Who is going to pay that salary? Will it come from the Old Testament idea of the tithe? Will the one man in the pulpit pressure the attenders to give to the church system instead of to the Apostolic like ministry of Paul, Timothy, Titus, Silas, etc. There are exceptions. I know of a man who got a seminary degree on the side, and humbly does not mention it. He continues to work an ordinary job. It was just an important education he wanted to help clear up some thoughts. We are not talking about that. We are not against seminaries in all cases. We are concerned about the seminary being the assumed path to the pastorate. There are career assumptions built into this modern path of becoming a pastor.
We are not against seminary training and scholarly research. What matters is the ekklesia. What matters is humility. What matters is that Jesus usually found fault with the experts. We think seminary training has been good for some. If the proper ekklesia is maintained, and one man is not using his credentials to dominate. We like the stories of men like D.A. Carson and Steve Wellum. If we sense humility in a man, education can be good. But today, there is a problem in the ekklesia, and many men are involved in perpetuating the problem. If God leads someone into academia, they must not use it against the biblical model. Most churches are looking for a senior pastor with degrees and academic achievements. They want a gifted orator for a pastor. John Piper's book does not help, but perpetuates the problem. He still is resisting the model of the Apostles in 1 Corinthians 14. Sometimes we are stubborn and don't see the angel standing there. The donkey sees it, but we don't.
Here we will link to a nice interview with Steve Wellum, that we think shows a mixture of giving honor to someone with academic achievement but a man receiving it with humility. The important part of this interview, is Steve describing a time when he was willing to give up the academic world after learning about caring for people in the church. This is still the modern church pastor model, but we appreciate the humility. There are many stories like this. Those with academic backrounds can do great good if they remain humble.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7_C63PERjw&t=1303s
Any church that assumes their new senior pastor must be a gifted orator and must have an M.Div, is misguided. Jesus picks ordinary men to be his disciples and they still were considered ordinary men when Peter and John were questioned by the Sanhedrin. Jesus had the harshest words to the educated. He also confronted the proud Saul, to make him the humble Paul. The real test is how does your ekklesia operate? Is there respect for the Apostle Paul's scripture in 1 Corinthians 14?
Denominations, Distinctives, And Order
How do we best order the church today when we have our strong theological distinctives? How do we maintain the purity of our persuasions when there are other competing Christian and non-Christian views all around us? How do we watch our doctrine closely and yet have an open heart to our Christian brothers who think different about important secondary issues? Will 'constitutions', 'statements of faith' or 'denominations' help?
We like Christians who are passionate about their beliefs. But we want to see beliefs tied to God's Word. We are skeptical of denominations, but they can also be used with good intentions. Guarding the right doctrine can sound like a good reason to add denominational boundaries. But, sometimes we divide, and we don't listen to each other. There is a tendency for human tradition that always maintains denominational boundaries even if they should be abandoned. Our general preference has been inter-denominational ministries and churches, because this usually implies a working out of differences rather than isolation and avoidance. We like to see discussion and dialog rather than stand-off isolation. Non-denominational ministries can be good or bad, it all depends on the purpose and intentions of the heart.
Today there are so many denominations in America that the unbelievers know Christianity is false. We have really missed the point of John 17. Our sad state of endless division gone to the extreme. The excuse of holding to right doctrines has become a problem in the big picture of Christian testimony. We are not going to say denominations are evil, because the intentions for creating denominations are often very good.
But when centuries go by, and there are still so many denominations, something is wrong.Murray, I. H. (2000) Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, p. 285. Can anyone deny that we have done what the 1 Corinthian started in 1 Corinthians 1. The solution to division is not justification for our methods but a little more humility and reliance on the Spirit. With man things are impossible, with God all things are possible. Sit down with other Christians with a breakfast, a coffee and a Bible. Do this over and over. Discuss books and Bible readings. Things really can change.
This quote from Spurgeon is helpful. Spurgeon says, "We may draw up the most express and distinct form of doctrine, but we shall find that the next generation will depart from the truth unless God shall be pleased to give it renewed grace from on high. You cannot, by Presbytery, or Independency, or Episcopacy, secure the life of the Church-I find the Church of God has existed under an Episcopacy-a form of government not without its virtues and its faults. I find the Church of God flourish under a Presbytery, and decay under it too. I know it can be successful under an Independent form of Church government and can decline into Arianism quite as easily. The fact is that forms of government have very little to do with the vital principle of the Church. "The reason why the Church of God exists is not her ecclesiastical regulations, her organization, her formularies, her ministers, or her creeds, but the presence of the Lord in the midst of her; and while Christ lives, and Christ reigns, and stands and feeds his Church, she is safe; but if he were once gone, it would be with her as it is with you and with me when the Spirit of God has departed from us, we are weak as other men, and she would be quite as powerless."- Charles H. Spurgeon, "Christ is Glorious – Let us Make Him Known"
The Bible is simple about this. Each city or town had its own ekklesia. This is supported by the Old Testament (Deut 21:1-3, etc) and the roots of the secular word ekklesia that was always tied to the polis. Just think about the beautiful excitement and joy in the Old Testament when the Jews celebrated their festivals. Now think of the New Covenant described in 2 Corinthians 3 being of much greater glory. Imagine the joy and health of a city wide ekklesia in the 1st century when 3000 were added in one day. They were all meeting in homes and in the temple (while it lasted), but they considered the church/ekklesia at the city level. This is much better than 50 churches in town with the unbelievers wondering why they are so divided. The model of Christian unity in John 17 is profound.
The Beautiful Church
I am glad to be part of the modern church, even with its flaws. I love to go to church, make friends, sing songs of joy, celebrate the Gospel of Jesus Christ and be encouraged. But I also want to dream about the Bible's idea of the ekklesia of Jesus Christ. I think we need pictures and visions of the ideal and the perfect. God's Word paints a picture of an amazing church, one that you may never see, but the picture is still painted. Our modern church problems should not stop us from dreaming.
If we know the good, we can help someone else. If we are immature, we can hurt. An important work of the Christian is to "spur one another on to love and good works" (Hebr 10:24). We can build up those in the church or we can tear down. Ephesians says, "Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one body" (Ephesians 4:25). And Ephesians 4:29 says, "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen." The clearest picture of the true ekklesia (gathering) is 1 Corinthians 14 and it is focused on this idea of building up, encouraging and comforting others. This is the beautiful church.
One of the most famous stories of the beautiful church is recorded in Acts, "Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common" (Acts 4:32). The Christians were overcome by amazement at God's gracious goodness and his power in raising Jesus from the dead, so sharing their possessions was a natural response to their joy. This is the beautiful church.
Experts tell us this story in Acts will never happen again. The idea is that this was an unusual time for the church, and we should not expect to ever see anything like it. Perhaps. But I have hope that there might be glimpses of the 'beautiful church' here on earth. I will dream and hope that I might see aspects of the beautiful early church described in the 1st century. And I am not blind to the fact that the 1st century church had problems. But the problems sometimes help to show the beautiful church more clearly. I get some of the most interesting thoughts about the beautiful church from Corinthians, even with its many problems. So for this reason, I really like the books of 1 and 2 Corinthians. 1 Corinthians 11 has the clearest picture of an early church meeting with the Lord's Supper meal. If the Corinthians had not made a mistake, we wouldn't have such a clear picture of the full-meal Lord's Supper. So the problems can vividly help us see aspects of the 'beautiful church.'
The church is called the body of Christ, and as members of this body, we are expected to love one another. But the Christian faith is ultimately a call to love God and each other to the extreme. Paul says, "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain" (Phil 1:21). And, "If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied" (1 Cor 15:19). But we have hope, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor 15:22). And on the love theme, Paul says, "Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things" (1 Cor 13:4-7). This is a good kind of dying. And when you see it, you are seeing the beautiful church.
God is serious about our behavior. John says, "for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother" (1 John 4:20b-21). This is very tangible and plain in Paul's 1st letter to Timothy. The practical instruction for providing for relatives and advice for widows and how the church should be burdened or not burdened, is fascinating (1 Tim 5).
The modern church has changed over the years and has become very institutional, formal and linked to the government. The church has experimented with small groups and mega-church, and it is not done trying things. There are online connection groups and there are alternatives to the traditional church. Many of these experiments and alternatives have issues. We need to show the issues so you can see the need for change. Even though the Reformers claimed the church is "always reforming" ("ecclesia semper reformanda"), they stopped far short of restoring the biblical ekklesia. Some of them knew better, but were afraid. They failed to follow 1 Corinthians 14:26 multi-voiced open forum and instead replaced the priest with the preacher. They continued to monopolize the assembly voice, leaving the ordinary believer to sit quietly in a pew and consume a sermon rather than actively participate. They continued to tie the church to the state in Germany, Switzerland and England for protection and enforcement. So the goal is really to be always reforming by the Word of God. To honor the headship of Christ, the church must continually re-examine its traditions with the traditions of the Apostles. There is a need to examine the invasive, controlling structure and look to the beautiful, non-invasive ekklesia model that Jesus envisioned. Allowing every qualified member to freely function in the ekkesia meeting is a foundation of the church.
We can't blame the Reformers because those days were chaotic. But we can blame ourselves for not following the Reformers call to be always reforming. The Reformers were heros but they made some compromises. "The Reformers, frightened by the wildfire that they saw breaking out around them, turned back to the old medieval concept of a Church... They had at first spoken bravely of a church of believers, an ekklesia of the reborn; but when they saw the radical implications of this concept, they beat a hasty retreat. They felt that society could not hold together without a monolithic, uniform religious structure. Hence, they retained the parish system, placed the pulpit where the altar had been, and substituted the authority of the orthodox preacher for the authority of the Catholic priest. It was a halfway covenant, a compromise born of fear."Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1964), 34–36.
Today we can describe Protestant Christianity as disunified. One co-worker with a Russia background wondered what religion I was, "Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc." He was very confused by our Christian denominations. But Jesus pictures the beautiful church in John 17. It is hard to imagine a more disunified church than what we have today.Murray, Iain H. Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2000. The unbelievers notice. The true church is only beautiful if the true Christians are unified like the church in Corinth. We can learn from the Corinthians. We should not be so quick to point out the flaws of the Corinthians when we have done worse. Today's Christians can learn from the failures of the church in Corinth, and resist the temptation to endlessly divide. There is nothing wrong with maintaining your doctrinal distictives, but dividing to the point of visibly divided institutions shows failure. The simple African church I lived among was unified in the early days, until the denominations found an opportunity to divide."The root of evil is the secular spirit of all of our ecclesiastical institutions", James Henry Thornwell, pg 9, introduction to Murray, Evangelicalism Divided. Early baptisms were public spectacles down by the muddy river with 50% unbelievers watching. There is a reason why this church grew. God chose to bless this church with growth, but there are a myriad of issues that also come with growth. As in the early church, we are all needy in different ways. The Corinthians were gifted and wealthy, but they didn't realize their poverty. The same was true of the Laodicean church (Rev 3:17). 1 Corinthians 14 calls us to use our mind and test. 1 Corinthians 1 addresses our modern church divisions. Obedience to Christ begins with a single visible ekklesia at the city/town level, so unbelievers are not utterly confused (Corinth, Ephesus, Jerusalem, Titus 1:5, etc).
Conclusion
This book has been an expression of thoughts and about the church that I am compelled to speak about. This book is not easy to write, because many people will strongly dislike the message. But, this is not a book calling for revolution. This is only a book about biblical reformation. These ideas are convictions based on the Bible to help open up discussion. If anyone is interested in talking more about these things, that would be great. However, we do not expect anything to change. We know biblical reformation is unlikely. People tend to stick to their usual traditions. Institutions do not change. Schools like Harvard and Yale were once Christian. But we would not even think about them changing back. Usually the only way for change is to start something new. Our appeal for change is nothing more than a call for conformitity to the Bible. We agree with the Reformation's idea that we should always be reforming.
The Bible is our final authority for faith and life. The Reformers were possibly blind to some issues in their cultural context being in close proximity to the 16 and 17th century corrupt Roman Catholic Church. We are proud of their achievements, but getting stuck in the 17th century theology is not responsible. We should always be looking to the Bible to question our theology. The Reformers failed and we will too, but we should not stop, sit back and cling to old theological systems with error. The Reformers boldly confronted an evil church and they made many good steps in the right direction. But that does not mean their ideas of doctrine, worship structures and church government were accurately implemented. They may have thought so, but all things should be tested. (Ref: tested)
The purpose of this book is not provoke anyone in traditional church leadership. Let the traditional church continue with what they want to do. I do not want to challenge existing church leadership. However, I do invite willing Christians and willing church leaders to consider these ideas, according to their own research in the Bible. I only ask for a thoughtful comparison with scripture and discussion based on the foundation of the Apostles and their traditions. A good polite discussion can be healthy and can help us refine our thoughts in conformitity with scripture.
Let's get together and discuss these things. One of the great calls to use our mind for spiritual things is in the very chapter that brings the greatest anxiety to some. 1 Corinthians 14:15-19 is focused on both our spirit and our mind applied to godly behavior in the church.
May God use these words to build up His Church.
| Public domain unless noted on the page. |